Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As with most Treasury laws amendment bills, Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020 contains a number of unrelated schedules. I'll confine my brief remarks today to schedules 1 and 3.

Schedule 1 expands the eligibility of the government's temporary full expensing-of-depreciating-assets measure, which brings in Australian businesses which breach the $5 billion income test because of foreign activities. While Labor supports this, it is important to note that any expensing measure must be judged primarily in terms of its impact on employment. As I mentioned in my remarks relating to the principal bill that came before the House, it is critical that firms be encouraged to make investments in capital which are complementary to their workforce, rather than supplementary.

I am somewhat concerned by a recent report by MIT entitled The work of the future: building better jobs in an age of intelligent machines, co-authored by David Autor, David Mindell and Elisabeth Reynolds. That report notes of the United States:

A series of tax law changes enacted over the last four decades has increasingly skewed the U.S. tax code toward subsidizing machinery purchases rather than investing in labor. Tax policy offers firms an incentive to automate tasks that, absent the distortions of the tax code, they would accomplish with workers. The U.S. should bring its tax code back into balance to align incentives for innovation in skills development, capital formation, and R&D investment.

The report recommends that the US:

The point that the report makes is that accelerated depreciation measures work best when you're investing in education at the same time as encouraging automation—when you're encouraging upskilling of the workforce in order for workers to become more productive with the additional machinery.

What concerns this side of the House is that the government has dropped the ball on skills, failing to invest in schools and failing to invest in vocational training, and that it has engaged in an old-fashioned Liberal culture war with the universities. Universities have been left out of JobKeeper—the rules for JobKeeper were changed three times to leave universities out—and, at a time when we should be expanding resources to universities, the government is cutting per student funding and making it more expensive for many students to attend university. We've just seen the Australian National University announcing 100 job cuts in science. These are just some of the more than 10,000 job cuts which have occurred across the sector.

We should be expanding higher education, not just for the people who work in that sector but for the value that higher education brings during an economic downturn. When the labour market is bad we should be encouraging people to spend that time out of the labour market improving their skills. In the early nineties recession, this meant an increase in the school-leaving age. Now it should mean ensuring there is a university place available for every student with the smarts to get there. The government simply isn't doing that, and that means I'm doubly concerned about the potential unforeseen impact of the temporary expensing measures.

Schedule 3 removes charitable status from the small number of recalcitrant charities which have failed to sign up to the National Redress Scheme flowing on from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. In speaking about that, let me draw on the report itself, which said of the institutional dimension of abuse:

While the impacts of child sexual abuse in institutional contexts are similar to those of child sexual abuse in other settings, we learned that there are often particular effects when a child is sexually abused in an institution. These include impacts on spirituality and religious involvement, such as a loss of faith or a loss of trust in a religious institution, for those victims sexually abused in such settings. We also heard that distrust and fear of institutions and authority are particular features of the effects of child sexual abuse in an institutional context.

That report told us about the responses of institutions to child sexual abuse and reminded us of the strength of survivors but also of the terrible impacts on those survivors—the re-traumatisation, the ostracism from institutions, the long healing process.

These amendments are part of a move Labor has called for, and the government has supported, on the basis that any charity that puts its own interests ahead of the debt they owe to survivors should not be receiving deductible gift recipient status. Charities that are not signing up to the national redress scheme cannot tough it out. They cannot outlast the survivors. They cannot stick their heads in the sand. If they do not sign up to the national redress scheme, they will not get the tax-deductible status that a charity gets.

The slow pace of redress is weighing on the survivors, and I will move a second reading amendment on these particular issues. But let me conclude my remarks by drawing on a few accounts from residents of the ACT in the context of the royal commission. The first of them are Lars and his brother Willem, and I quote from the report of the royal commission:

Lars migrated from the Netherlands with his family in the 1950s, and they settled in the Australian Capital Territory, where they were befriended by a local Catholic priest.

'Back in those days, obviously the clergy had a lot of influence, and a lot of respect', so when Father Dylan began sexually abusing Lars and several of his siblings, they felt that they couldn’t tell their parents.

Lars and his brother Willem came to the royal commission to tell their stories. Willem was particularly affected by the harm that was done to him.

Another victim was Imelda. The report of the royal commission states:

When Imelda was 10, her father took her to stay with a local priest he knew, Father Callaghan. She can’t remember exactly, but thinks she was there for several weeks. Imelda remembers being in bed the first night, when Callaghan got into bed with her. She still remembers what he was wearing and to this day, she does not like blue-striped pyjamas.

When Imelda wrote a letter in the mid-1990s outlining her abuse by the priest and gave it to a high-ranking member of the Catholic Church, she was under the impression that nothing was done. Thereport of the royal commission states:

Imelda came to the Royal Commission because 'I don’t like the fact that it's a secret and that it hasn't come out and that he got away with it … I read what you guys are doing, why you're doing this. It’s to help … It's to prevent things from happening in the future and so the government can work out new ways of being, you know, wary about these kinds of things.

She just wanted to 'let the world know that this is not okay, and it's not going to happen anymore'.

To Imelda, Lars and Willem, we recognise the importance of acting upon the report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. In that vein, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that survivors of institutional child sexual abuse have been waiting too long and are receiving inadequate support while going through the process of seeking redress;

(2) further notes the context of the amendments in the bill to incentivise charities to join the National Redress Scheme or face deregistration; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) put in place an early payment scheme for child sexual abuse survivors who are ill or elderly;

(b) stop indexing prior payment;

(c) increase the maximum payment to $200,000 as recommended by the Royal Commission; and

(d) fix the assessment matrix so it properly recognises the impact of abuse".

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and I reserve my right to speak.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Whitlam.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to give a long speech—and I know that's why the member for McMahon has come down to the chamber to hear it—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wouldn't miss it!

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But there is an understanding between both sides that we're attempting to deal with non-controversial legislation in an expeditious way, so I'll just address my comments very briefly to schedule 2. Before doing that, I thank the member for Fenner for his contribution, and I'd like the House to note that I'm speaking in favour of his amendment.

Schedule 2 to the bill moves the responsibility for making rules about the consumer data right from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to the Treasurer, through the Treasury. Labor strongly supports the consumer data right—the capacity for consumers to have more control over their data and to use that data and have that data facilitate the transfer of their business between one institution and another. The rollout of open data, as it is known in other countries and in this country, has started with banking and in the finance sector. I probably would have started with telecommunications, as they're much more advanced in this area than banking and finance. Be that as it may, it's an objective and a scheme that we support.

We won't be opposing the bill and we won't be opposing this measure contained within a bill that overall is very worthy. But I do have deep concerns—Labor has deep concerns—about this particular measure and deep concerns that this continues a practice under this government of moving more and more of the details outside of substantive legislation and into delegated legislation and, in this case, taking that one step further by removing it from the parliament, which has previously delegated it to an independent authority that is expert in the issues of competition and consumer issues—actually, expert in issues concerning consumer data rights, having conducted a thorough review of digital platforms and digital industries. It seems to us passing strange that, against this background, the government would remove responsibility for rule-making in relation to the consumer data right from an agency that has expertise in consumer affairs and an agency that has expertise in data, data rights and data issues and into the Treasurer's department.

There's only one conclusion you can draw from that, and that is that they are unhappy with the advice and the rule-making practices that were going on within the ACCC. We have concerns about this. We'll be watching it very closely indeed—not enough to make us hold up or amend the bill, but it is something that warrants the close scrutiny of this parliament and its organs over the months ahead. With those comments, I commend the amendment moved by the member for Fenner to the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few remarks about schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020, and I'm confining my remarks to that schedule. This bill exemplifies schedule 1, exemplifies the government's approach to the recovery, which is to give money to business, and everyone else gets their support cut. As a result, as we've just heard in the last week or so, 60 per cent of the share of Australia's total income—the share of the pie in Australia—is now going to profit, which is a 60-year high, and only 40 per cent is going to wages. In other words, we are now at record low levels of having the national pie being shared with workers and record highs of having it go to profits.

When you want to understand why, you need to look at the measures and the approach being taken by the government in this bill. The budget that the government has put forward this year has $99 billion a year in subsidies and handouts to big corporations. Now in this bill we're talking about increasing the ability of some subsidiaries of some of the world's biggest multinationals to get even more from the public purse. The government is handing over billions and billions of dollars to big corporations and subsidiaries of multinationals in the hope that some of it might trickle down to everyone else. As we're heading towards the end of the year, the government brings forward a bill that says, 'Let's give billions of dollars more to big corporations', at the same time as people on JobSeeker and JobKeeper are getting their payments cut.

There's a different way of doing things, which is to say you get out of a recession by building from the bottom up, by using public money to invest in nation-building, planet-saving projects that will create jobs, and that means that in this country no-one needs to live in poverty. In other words, you use the money to lift people out of poverty by lifting JobSeeker, not cutting it. You provide people with guaranteed jobs on these big nation-building projects and the country gets something out of it. That was the approach that the US took to get themselves out of the Great Depression. But instead, what's this government doing? Instead of taking billions of dollars of public money and investing it in publicly owned infrastructure and expanding things like aged care and health care, the government is taking billions of dollars of public money and giving it to big corporations and hoping for the best. That is what schedule 1 does. It continues the government's trickle-down approach to recovery.

Instead, we need to go to the end of the year with a commitment that no-one in this wealthy country of ours will live in poverty. We need to go to the end of the year with a commitment that everyone who wants a job is able to get one. The government should be in a position to guarantee a job to everyone who wants one. If, instead of spending $99 billion a year on handouts to big corporations and the super wealthy, we invested the money in things like building half a million new public housing homes, expanding our aged-care and education sectors and building 100 per cent renewable energy, then we would get towards full employment in this country and we would lift people out of poverty. The big corporations might make a bit less. But in the middle of a recession, or our exiting out of a recession, with a million people unemployed and with millions of people in, or being plunged into, poverty as the government cuts their support, we should be saying there are better ways of spending money. There are better ways of spending billions of dollars than giving big corporations a handout and hoping for the best. The government will say: 'Well, it's okay. If we give billions of dollars in handouts to big corporations they're going to employ people.' But the thing is, in this bill there are no strings attached that say, 'If we give you billions of dollars of public money, will you use the money to employ people, or will you use it to buy local, or will you use it to grow the renewal energy sector?' No. The government just gives the money to corporations that might be so profitable that they can already be paying dividends. They're getting government handouts under this bill as well.

It is time for a different approach. It's time for the Green new deal approach to recovery: a government led plan of investment and action to grow jobs by investing in the industries that will tackle the climate crisis. It will make Australia more equal. That is what we should be doing with billions of dollars, not giving it to big corporations.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020. This bill, amongst other things, amends the temporary full expensing and backing business investment provisions in the income tax law to provide greater flexibility for entities to access concessions. The temporary full expensing measures were a cornerstone of the budget in getting businesses investment going again, and were very much welcome. They were the biggest single measure in the budget, worth an estimated $26.7 billion. Its focus on encouraging businesses to invest freely through full asset write-offs is a positive step to get the money flowing.

The tax incentives for businesses are an opportunity for businesses to drive real change towards their net zero targets. The temporary full expensing measures enabled by this bill combined with other measures, such as the instant asset write-off and the extension of the research and development tax incentive, allowed businesses to invest in their green recovery. These incentives total an investment opportunity of nearly $30 billion according to Treasury estimates. Businesses can invest in green energy through installing solar, batteries and smart meters. They can invest in their transport through electrifying their vehicle fleet to bring down their operating and maintenance costs. They can install electric vehicle charges to attract more customers to their business. They can reduce waste through investing in new and more precise technologies, such as laser cutting tools or deploying in-office paper recycling systems. These initiatives, and many more like them, will make so many businesses more competitive. Businesses have a time-limited opportunity now, over the next two years, to write them off.

I recently participated in a webinar, hosted by the Smart Energy Council, which reinforced the value of the green recovery and how the incentives can be used to help local businesses improve their efficiency and reduce long-term costs. The webinar was also attended by the CEO of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia and by local businesses in Warringah, such as Colourmaker, who are making the most of these opportunities and spreading the word about the value it has created for them.

I encourage all businesses to look at the opportunities presented by these temporary full expensing measures. This legislation adds additional means for businesses to qualify for the temporary full expensing measure, so I urge the government to consider also making changes to the criteria for the cashflow boost payment that was rolled out to support small businesses through the pandemic. I've written to the Treasurer regarding this, in particular on the eligibility for the cashflow boost. Many businesses in my electorate have written to me, expressing their disappointment because they've been deemed ineligible for the cashflow boost due to the timing of their BAS lodgement forms. The two companies in particular that have written to me fell through the cracks of the eligibility for the program because of complications with mergers and acquisitions, causing a delay in the lodgement of their BAS. So I urge the Treasurer to consider the case of WOTSO, who operate a flexible business office space and, due to a de-merger, were not eligible for the cashflow boost, despite meeting all other criteria. Similarly for Elite Woodhams Relocation, who were formed as a merger between Woodhams International and Elite Executive Services—both of which had been in operation for over 20 years, with 13 staff between them. But their merger occurred on 1 March 2020, hence Elite Woodhams Relocation was not able to lodge on or before 12 March 2020. Accordingly, the merger of EWR would be eligible for a maximum payment of $100,000, should an exception be granted from the 12 March 2020 lodgement date. Clearly, these are just the cases where the technicalities of timing are making very legitimate businesses that would otherwise be eligible fall through the cracks. These businesses do require the support of the government to make it through the pandemic. Their operations have been severely curtailed by the government-imposed restrictions. Deeming businesses 'ineligible' goes against the stated purpose of the measure, which was to support businesses through the pandemic by providing cashflow boosts. I urge the Treasurer to consider amending this eligibility criteria to extend that cashflow boost to these businesses.

There are also some amendments in the bill to consumer data rights. Consumer data rights provide consumers, both individuals and businesses, with a right to effectively and efficiently access specified data, in relation to them, held by the business. The bill changes the administration of this right from the independent Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to bring the primary responsibility closer to the government in the Treasury department. There's no explanation in the explanatory memorandum for why this change is being made. However, to change the governance of the data right rules framework after just a year of its operation deserves, I would say, more explanation than is currently provided by the bill.

In conclusion, I thank the government and I support these measures, but I do urge businesses to look closely at the opportunities that they present, in particular for a green recovery through the temporary full expensing measure. I urge the government to review the eligibility of businesses for the cashflow boost to businesses, with a focus on those who have been through a merger or acquisition and, as such, the timing provisions make them fall through the crack. Again, an explanation in respect of the logic of the transfer of responsibility for the CDR rules from the ACCC to the Treasury would be welcome.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill. I'll be focusing on one particular part of this bill today, and that is schedule 3, which amends the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commissions Act to encourage recalcitrant organisations that still haven't signed up to the National Redress Scheme to do so. In speaking to this, I will be supporting Labor's second reading amendment, moved by the member for Fenner. In short, schedule 3 of this bill changes the definition of a basic religious charity so that it excludes charities that have claims against them under the National Redress Scheme but still have not signed up.

This is one of the ways in which the government is fulfilling an important recommendation of the first National Redress Scheme Committee, which I deputy chaired in 2018 and 2019. Its recommendations were tabled in this parliament on 2 April 2019, more than two years ago now. This recommendation was again reiterated in a consensus report from the second redress committee, which I also deputy chair in this current parliament. While I recognise that not all abusing organisations will be caught by this legislation because some are simply not charities, these changes are important and terribly long overdue.

The National Redress Scheme started in 2018, so organisations have had well over two years to sign up now. There is absolutely no excuse, no reason and no possible justification for not having done so by now. Tax concessions are given in recognition of the positive contribution that organisations make to our communities and our nation. But those organisations that fail to sign up for redress are fundamentally failing. Indeed, they are actively refusing to deliver on their side of the social contract. For those organisations that have demonstrated such reckless disrespect and failed so terribly to take responsibility for the grievous trauma they have inflicted, there can be no reason that the taxpayer would continue to pay generous tax concessions.

Sadly, a number of survivors have already died without their abusing organisations ever signing up to the scheme. This is appalling, it is unacceptable and it cannot go on. Today, I am calling out those recalcitrant organisations, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Kenja Communication, Lakes Entrance Pony Club and Fairbridge Restored Ltd, which is now in administration. These institutions were named in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, so they know well that they have active claims against them. Despite this, they have failed to join the scheme. Not only that; they have failed to even signify their intent to join, as they were requested to do in the first half of this year.

There is another group of around 80 institutions who also haven't joined the scheme, but they have at least signified their intent to do so. They will now have until 31 December to sign up, and they have been put on notice about the financial consequences if they don't. To these organisations I say: for the sake of the survivors you have so deeply hurt, I urge you to please do the right thing and sign up for the redress.

Of course today's measures are an important step, which Labor heartily endorses. However, this doesn't change the fact that there are still many issues with the National Redress Scheme—not least of which is the fact that nowhere near the number of expected payments are being made. The royal commission estimated that there were 60,000 survivors who would be eligible under this scheme, but by 6 November this year only 4,117 payments had been made. Indeed, the economic and fiscal update shows that payments under the scheme will decrease by $610 million in 2021 as a result of the slower uptake. Thousands of people who deserve justice simply aren't coming forward. The government needs to work out why and to fix it.

The scheme has other shortcomings that Labor has long called on the Morrison government to address. That's why I'm very pleased to endorse the amendments that have been moved by the member for Fenner. The government needs to put in place an early payment scheme for child sexual abuse survivors who are elderly or ill. This has been done by the Scottish parliament recently, so there is some good practice that we could turn to to help inform some legislation here. The government also needs to ensure that we stop indexing prior payments. It needs to increase the maximum payment back to $200,000, as was the recommendation by the royal commission, and the government must urgently fix the assessment matrix so that it recognises the impact of abuse, which, again, is what the royal commission intended.

To this end, I'd like to reiterate Labor's offer to work in good faith with the government to make the National Redress Scheme the best it can be for survivors. That should be in the interests of everyone in this parliament—indeed, it is in the national interest. Whilst this is a long overdue step in the right direction, there is still much work to be done.

Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party, Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate.

Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020 makes technical changes to the temporary full expensing and backing business investment regimes to provide more flexibility for entities and to clarify their operation. The schedule introduces an alternative test for the full expensing measure. Businesses with less than $5 billion in total statutory and ordinary income, excluding non-accessible and non-exempt income, in the 2018-19 or 2019-20 income year will be able to benefit from the full expensing measure when they also have a minimum $100 million in certain depreciating assets first held, used or installed in the period 2016-17 to 2018-19. This change is targeted at Australian businesses that have a track record of investment but were not initially eligible for the temporary full expensing measures, as their income was aggregated with that of their overseas parents or affiliates under the original test. Schedule 1 also allows businesses to opt out of full expensing and the backing business investment incentive on an asset-by-asset basis. This provides businesses with more flexibility and means they can choose to apply the capital allowance rules that they consider most appropriate to their circumstances. The changes are designed to support Australian businesses to withstand the impacts of COVID-19 on their business and to invest, to grow and to create jobs.

Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to better enable the consumer data right to continue in a way that is coordinated, accessible and secure. By allowing increased coordination in policy setting and increasing the accessibility of the consumer data right to interested digital businesses, these amendments will allow the range of benefits already being provided by the consumer data right to grow and to be shared with more businesses and consumers.

Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 to encourage charities that may have been responsible for past institutional child sexual abuse to participate in the National Redress Scheme. This measure will amend the definition of a 'basic religious charity', or BRC, to remove a religious institution's eligibility to be classified as a BRC if it has a claim against it under the Redress Scheme and does not join the scheme. A BRC that fails to take reasonable steps to participate in the Redress Scheme would be subject to a suite of the ACNC's existing compliance powers, including deregistration. Deregistration would result in the entity losing access to a suite of Commonwealth benefits and concessions, including tax concessions.

Schedule 4 to the bill makes minor and technical amendments to the Treasury portfolio legislation. This includes amendments that clarify the law to ensure that it operates in accordance with the policy intent, make minor policy amendments to improve administrative outcomes, or remedy unintended consequences and correct technical or drafting defects. I commend the bill to the House.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.